Daunting Types?

[M14P]

My efforts to drum up interest for shares in a Wilga 2000 has prompted an interesting question:

Since the 'usual' group and flying club aircraft tend to be Cessna or Piper offerings we seem to be rather 'catholic' in our tastes (this is true of the USA too I suppose). Does this mean that a signifcant number of pilots - particularly newly qualifed - deliberately avoid flying more unusal types?

Have you ever been somewhat daunted by an aircraft type?

Would you rather not fly types that you have been told are 'tricky'?

I suppose this topic is very broad (good for a debate). It might be an opportunity to debunk some 'type' myths and encourage some of you to have a crack at something a little more interesting?

[QDMQDMQDM]

There's a Broussard group here at Eggesford, along with an Auster 9 group and a number of other unusual groups. One of the high-time Auster pilots (2,500+ on Austers) says he doesn't like flying cubs because they're too easy, while the Auster is always a challenge, even for him. It's good to stretch yourself.

QDM

[M14P]

I've flown a Broussard - Now there's a physically daunting type! Chronometric tachometer, too. A bit like flying a french railway carriage. Great fun.

[Southern Cross]

I heard the Broussard described last week as being 2nd only to the Antonov AN2 as being the most uneconomical way of turning avgas (money) into holes in the sky (flying pleasure). Ha ha. They do look somewhat "ungainly".

I am at first blush daunted by the P51D, but I could I think overcome that with the application either of vast quantities of money or the generosity of a P51D owner... same applies to the Spitfire, Corsair, P40...

[Onan the Clumsy]

There were two Broussards in a hanger in Gainesville Texas for the longest time. I heard the bloke what bought them got them really cheaply, but was waiting for paperwork to make 'em legal to fly in the US...and waiting and waiting...

Looked like they'd be a lot of fun though and flying railway carriage is an appropriate description.

[tacpot]

And in case anyone didn't understand the referrence to the chronometric tachometer, it is a tachometer that indicates RPM at a limited number of discrete RPM values (usually 50RPM increments). Thus it will tend to flick and jump as power settings are changed. Very odd!

It makes seeing small RPM changes (e.g. when applying carb heat and when leaning) problematical.

[QNH 1013]

Our group Jodel has a chronometric tacho but as far as I can tell, it will indicate any rpm value. However, because it seems to work on a sampling basis, any rpm changes take a few samples to stablise, i.e there is always a delay before the new reading is shown. In fact most of the instruments are quaint in this (french) aircraft, the ASI reads in km/h, and I've never worked out what french units the oil pressure reads in. Fortunately the gauge has red, amber and green sectors and I can cope with them.
Still, it gives the aircraft a lot of character, and we have the original black-crackle instrument panel and original vertical throttle levers.

[witchdoctor]

Isn't it odd, a bit like drivers shying away from part ownership of a Porsche 911 because they heard they were 'tricky'. Would that ever happen in the car world?

[Floppy Link]

Last September I bought the WAR replica P47 Thunderbolt advertised in Popular Flying magazine. And a few weeks ago I flew it for the first time...now that was daunting! Broke all the rules...

first flight on an unfamiliar type
from an unfamiliar grass airstrip
with self induced pressure to fly it home before the weather and my days off ran out...

It all turned out OK in the end. See P47 website (http://www.espotlight.co.uk/gbtbi) but next time I'll do things differently.
There might not be a next time because this one is so much fun!
Russell

p.s. One day I'll learn how to land it properly.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Very interesting thread. I have long wondered why so many PPLs only ever fly Cherrytrees and 172s and suchlike. They may be very practical and reliable flying machines - but I sometimes wonder if their pilots know what they are missing in terms of real flying fun?????

Do they care?

Which begs the question, how many of us fly for fun, how many for practcal purposes?

SSD

[Aerobatic Flyer]

When I was newly qualified, I deliberately tried to fly more interesting types. The only one that was daunting was the Pitts (S2A), and then only from the front seat.

In defence of the "spamcan" hirers, though, it can be quite difficult to find something interesting to rent. At the airfield I used to fly from in the UK, there are 5 flying clubs. Between them, they have Cessnas (152 / 172), Pipers (PA28 / 38), and a couple of small Robins. When the most exciting type available is a Piper Arrow, it's perhaps understandable that myths take hold and a Jodel, Pitts, Chipmunk or Wilga becomes something very daunting.

Unfortunately also, "daunting" types sometimes live up to their reputations. A club I fly from in France bought a very nice little Jodel. Last autumn someone got caught out by a cross-wind on the single hard runway, and destroyed the undercarriage and propeller. Three weeks ago, it had another accident ( :ouch: ) and is now being sold (:{). Most club members fly 10-15 hours a year in a Robin DR400 and many have been put off taildraggers for life.

As for your Wilga.... it's a shame it's so far away! It sounds like the ideal machine for my kind of flying. Can you put skis on it?

[bingoboy]

What do we mean by daunting ?

I have flown several types with either high approach speeds or with seeming acres of "bonnet" trying to hide the runway and they presented challenges unless properly current etc.

I suppose they would be daunting but then so would flying a 172 in a challengeing and gusty crosswind.

Flying a 172 can be just as much fun as a J3. Its all about what you do with them, where you go and how you go there.

Really daunting must surely be a small single seater with more power than is needed and with wings so small that the word glide has a vertical definition. Say a Cassutt.

[topcat450]

yeah I've always been interested in new types too, but as has already been pointed out...most places only have spamcans - or charge silly amounts for something slightly unusual.

[FlyingForFun]

Like others, I actually prefer to fly something a little more "daunting". Close to the top of my "must have" list when looking for an aircraft was that it had to be a tail-dragger. The mono-wheel that I fly is a tail-dragger to extremes.

Having said that, one thing I always try to do (in everything, but especially aviation) is respect others' choices. If someone wants to buy a share in a PA28 because they know the type and they're happy with it, that's fine by me, so long as they're going to enjoy it.

Last Sunday I flew my Europa for the first time in a few weeks (due to some maintenance issues). I had had plenty of flying practice in the meantime, including two IMC training flights in a C172 earlier that day. But even so, as I was taxying towards the run-up area, my heart was beating just a little faster than normal at the thought of getting this strange beast safely onto the ground at the end of my flight.

Of course it all went fine - just a tiny bounce on landing as the tail-wheel touched down on a bump, but definitely towards the better end of my Europa landings. But it's easy to see why people stay away from the more exotic types sometimes.

FFF
-----------

[BlueRobin]

All talk of spamcans goes straight over my head.

To date,

- learnt on HR200
- a few hours European touring in a Warrior
- tailwheel conversion on Super Cub
- currently own and learning to fly my part-share in a Jodel

plus

- one dual glider launch
- 20 mins in a Falke
- righthand seat in a GY-80 Gardan

Nowt much conservative about that!

If people are passionate about flying, they'll seek out the best and not just go for what's on offer from the nearest school. I findeed it is daunting, then the PPL will play it safe.

To go from a C152 to say a WW2 fighter would be daunting. Pilot would probably kill themselve son takeoff, if not, in a spin shortly after. C152 to say a Jodel less so, but perfectly manageable and safe given experience is properly instilled.

All depends on your interests in aviation and what level of FUN you want!



BlueRobin
...whose Jodel is a right little handful on the ground roll post-landing.

[Lowtimer]

I've gone out of my way to fly as many different types as possible since gaining my licence. Some are undoubtedly more daunting than others, but finding the inner resources and developing the knowledge and skills to operate them safely is a big part of the appeal of flying for me. As time goes by, what once appeared daunting becomes less so - it's how you know you're learning.

The first time I sat in the Yak 52's front cockpit I felt distinctly daunted. After 30 hrs on type, I find it straightforward and friendly, though like FFF in his Europa, I still find I have a raised pulse and dry mouth sometimes in the moments before I start the engine and begin to taxi. I don't mind that - I think a certain amount of it helps me focus on the absolute seriousness with which I have to treat the whole endeavour of flying, even if it is for fun. The Pitts S2 I still find rather daunting, and in less guarded moments have been known to use the word 'intimidating', but I know that in time, and given the cash (!) I will come to terms with it.

One aeroplane I expected to find daunting but didn't is the Stearman - for some reason, perhaps its sheer size, I expected it to be incredibly heavy and physically demanding. But in the air I found it precise, talkative and remarkably co-operative. However I only have one flight under my belt and I am certain, as with all the aeroplanes I fly, even the PA-28, that it is capable of showing me a more challenging side. Even a pussycat will bite in the right (wrong) circs, like when you reach the end of a lovely grass runway in a Tiger Moth and find you can't turn off along the taxiway because of the slight crosswind.

I appreciate that people learn to fly for all kinds of different reasons and many, including a good friend with whom I've often discussed this, have no ambition to fly anything other than a nice PA-28 or C-172. Good luck to them - for those who prefer to challenge yourself by flying long complicated routes, developing your instrument flying, traversing busy complex airspace, these are all worthwhile and rewarding things to work on, and quite capable of being every bit as daunting.

[Whirlybird]

Knocking the Piper and Cessna flyers while saying we aren't...here we go again. :(

I speak as someone who flies anything I can lay hands on, f/w or rotary, and spending my life stumbling from one challenge to another, BUT....

Who says that flying has to be challenging? What is wrong with relaxing after a hard week, on the odd occasions one can afford it, by boring holes in the sky in your local area? I fly f/w aircraft very rarely, but when I do, I fly a hired C152...and it's fun. :) :) :) And I hope it always will be.

[AerBabe]

All the aircraft I have flown I have found daunting to some degree. Early in my PPL training I would be driving to the airport wondering what on Earth I was doing. And that was 'just' a C152. Having gained my PPL I started a tailwheel conversion in a Chipmunk. Just looking at the huge size of the machine made me apprehensive. But after a few circuits I started to feel much more a part of it, and like it was my home. The thrill of conquering the mighty beast (well almost ... I ran out of money before I could solo) left me walking tall and desperate to get my hands on more interesting types. The more initially daunting the better, as the more satisfaction I'll gain from learning to control it. Bring 'em on! :ok:

[Onan the Clumsy]

One of the most interesting aspects of flying to me is that there is always a next level to adapt to.

I remember that when I went from a 152 to a 172, I just sat there and looked at "all those instruments" That was daunting, but didn't stay that way. Then I got into a 182 and had to handle all that power. Now the 182 seems like riding a bike, which is not to say that I'm a great pilot, just that I'm ready for the next challenge - of which there are many.

[Lowtimer]

Whirly -
Not knocking anyone or their aeroplane, honest, and I apologise to anyone who took it that way. I'm very partial to the Archer II I sometimes hire for getting around in, and had a most enjoyable 90 mins in it earlier this year doing nothing but general handling and a series of mixed circuits - flapless, glide, bad weather, short field etc. One of the best hours I've spent in an aeroplane this year. And I did make a point of checking out on the C-152 recently, as it felt like a gap in my education - and what a smooth, light and lovely thing it was, it put a big smile on my face. As for sometimes wanting to go out and have fun without a lot of headache, of course, and I'm a firm believer in the idea that anything as expensive as private flying should be fun, otherwise why bother? It's just that learning is fun too, and even if a lesson is sometimes hard work, those are often the ones I find most rewarding, looking back on them. Plus, having a broader repertoire means you have more ways of having fun in future!

[Whirlybird]

Lowtimer,

I didn't mean you in particular; sorry if it sounded like I did. It was just my impression of the whole tone of this thread, and a number of others...often implying that those who only fly PA38s and C152s somehow are lesser beings than those who fly more challenging aircraft.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Who says that flying has to be challenging? What is wrong with relaxing after a hard week, on the odd occasions one can afford it, by boring holes in the sky in your local area?
Nobody has said it, and nothing is wrong with it!:)

But a thread entitled "daunting types" is going to attract comments about flying aircraft that you don't normally find in flying club fleets, and those comments will often be that the exciting super-plane was a bit more fun than the Cessnas, Pipers, Robins etc. that most of us spend most of our time flying.

[QDMQDMQDM]

It was just my impression of the whole tone of this thread, and a number of others...often implying that those who only fly PA38s and C152s somehow are lesser beings than those who fly more challenging aircraft

Come on, Whirly, no need to get all PC about this. Spamcan drivers are just 'rectangularly challenged', that's all. ;)

QDM

[knobbygb]

As a low hours PPL I have as much yearning to fly 'interesting' types as the others on this thread. The thing that puts me off is the thought that I'd just be laughed at if I asked someone to let me fly somthing much more challenging. I know this probably wouldn't be the case but I just have visions of calling up and them saying "how many hours?!! - come back in a few years sonny!"

When I have the money (soon, I hope) I'd like to buy a share in somthing interesting, but how many groups honestly want a 70hr tyro like me flying their pride and joy? I guess all the 'spam can driver' comments, although probably mostly said in jest, get into the subconcious more than we realise.

I suppose I just don't want to be embarrassed by being rejected. Perhaps I'd be pleasantly surprised if I just asked...

[AerBabe]

You might well find that your low hours count for a lot. Rather than being a stuck-in-a-rut PA28 fan, you are keen to try new things and are still relatively flexible about your flying. 300 hours down the line people might wonder why you suddenly want to try something with the third contact point at the right end (exemptions include Yak-52s...) for example. If someone laughs at you, laugh back as you know you're the better person.

I'm another who loves C152s. Depends on how you fly them. My instructor delights in getting the most out of the machine, which results in incredibly fun lessons.

[Lowtimer]

Knobby,

I think you're probably at just the right time to start looking into it. My PPrune name means what it says. I only have 120 hrs of Group A time logged in the two and a quarter years since I started my PPL course (on a Piper Warrior), and had 60 hrswhen I started on the Cub, about 85 when I started on the Yak. Must admit to about 40 hours of gliding in a previous life plus some highly informal unlogged time with some very good ex RAF / airline instructors in various types during the 80s, but it's not a tremendous amount.

Don't be afraid that people will reject you for lack of hours. Everywhere I've talked to about flying different types, the attitude has been "We'd love you to have a go, don't worry, we won't send you off solo until you're good and ready". What counts is attitude and aptitude more than hours. Where they might express a view is in encouraging you to take things a step at a time, e.g. C152 to Cub, Cub to Tiger, Tiger to Pitts, not straight there in one fell swoop. But I've heard of that being done too, by the truly determined, though I reckon it often costs more and takes longer than going via intermediate steps. In any case, many schools with more exotic types are just as happy for you to have an hour or two's dual taster of a type, even if you don't want to solo it.

What really, really helps you be accepted as serious about learning to fly a type, in my experience, is reading absolutely everything you can about it. Get the pilots notes or flight manual and learn it off by heart. Understand the engineering and the systems. e.g. learn how a CS prop works, and why (for example) a lot of aerobatic types and twins have a type of CS prop that works in a different way to an SEP tourer. Read lots of books by other pilots who can communicate well, especially (if you can get them) the 70s and 80s writings of Neil Williams, Brian Lecomber, Bernard Chabbert etc. These days I find Andy Sephton and Maxi Gainza to be among the best writers about the foibles of various types. And ask your instructors, and people whose flying you respect if they've ever flown a Type X, adn what they thought about it. Often the quiet softly-spoken guy who does a bit of weekend instructing turns out to be a former Lightning or Harrier man who flies corporate turboprops during the week and displays a Stearman (or something) when he can.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In my experience, most of these "unusual" aeroplanes aren't at-all dangerous, just different. They can all be flown safely, what's important is to have enough knowledge of what you are flying.

There are ways and means to do this, they are taught to test pilots, they were also taught to the ATA delivery pilots during WW2. It is a subject I'm also trying to write a book on which I hope you'll all buy if it gets published (shameless plug, but what the heck).

If you go to a syndicate with such an odd type, asking lots of questions along the lines of "where's the manual", "how does this work then" and particularly "how much time will somebody else spend flying with me so that I can come to terms with it" then you'll find that you don't get put out on your ear.

A few points..

- If there aren't pilots notes, ask lots of questions and formulate your own.
- Get all the really key points on your kneeboard.
- Spend as much time as you can going through where controls are, procedures, limits, dials, etc. sat on the ground.
- Obviously not viable in a single seater, but if possible fly first with somebody experienced who knows the type. Don't let them do anything if possible, just get them to talk through doing everything.

For the record, I've 80 types in the logbook. Least favourite were Hunter T7 and C152, favourites are Hawk and Southdown Raven. Unusually, I also quite like the PA38.

G

[QDMQDMQDM]

It is a subject I'm also trying to write a book on which I hope you'll all buy if it gets published

What's it actually about, Genghis?

QDM

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Don't worry about low hours. I got my PPL on C150s in 1979, and immediately converted onto the Chipmunk with less than 50 hours total in my logbook. Like Lowtimer, I did have some gliding experience under my belt before I'd started the PPL, but I actually think there are advantages in gaining those extra skills as early in your flying career as you can.

After the Chippy (which is still my main type), I flew a lot of types including many taildraggers (Cubs, Moths, Citabrias, Stearman etc - even a Waco) - and my early Chippy experiences made it all realtively drama-free.

It was not until many years later (the late 90s) that I bought a share in a Yak 52. It isn't a taildragger (but it has the character of one!) but was my first 'complex' type. First VP prop, first retractable, first with cowl flaps (that you have to vary in flight or you cook the engine), and far more powerful than anything else I'd flown to date. As a result, I think it took me longer to check out in it than if I'd met some of these 'complexities' earlier in my flying career.

IMHO it is better to start getting as much diverse experience as soon as you can. It also makes for interesting flying.

SSD

[Lowtimer]

In mentioning authors whose published works I find helpful, I strongly suspect that Ghenghis would be on the list if I knew his list of pen names! BBeagle has also written some fascinating stuff on PPrune - his account of the Buccaneer was most interesting.
Go on, Ghenghis, what didn't you like about the Hunter?

[Genghis the Engineer]

So far as pen-names are concerned, I've not yet published any books, but you've probably read some of my stuff in various flying / engineering periodicals published in the UK and US. None of the editors have ever relayed any letters of complaint about any of it, so I assume people like my writing.

The book is actually an attempt to replicate the "ATA blue book" which was a series of "type-cards" used by wartime ferry pilots giving them enough data to operate each type safely. I've in draft two versions, one for microlights and one for light aircraft - the first is pretty much ready to go in first edition form, the second probably needs another 6-12 months work. Bob Pooley seemed fairly keen when I talked over the drafts with him in December and I need to go and see him about it again sometime soon. If he changes his mind, I'll hawk it around the bazaars and see if there are any other takers.

I did have an early draft of some of my cards that I showed a few people at the Sywell fly-in last year so others may like to comment on it as they saw it then.


Re: the Hunter, the thing is an ergonomic nightmare, whoever designed that cockpit so far as I could tell took a box of instruments, emptied them onto his drawing board at random and said "we'll do it in that order". To make life even harder, all the dials are the same size, shape and colouring. Add in to that that as a shortarse I couldn't see over the coaming of the ones we had at ETPS which had extra flight-test instrumentation. I'm told the single seaters are much nicer but I'm not a jet pilot and only ever flew right-hand-seat as an observer so can only take that as hearsay. Handling was very crisp and light but I prefer the slightly heavier controls of the Hawk which personally I find easier to fly precisely and gives you better natural warning of the risk of overstress.

G

[Onan the Clumsy]

Lowtimer,

and why (for example) a lot of aerobatic types and twins have a type of CS prop that works in a different way to an SEP tourer.

in what way?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Those of us who fly and love the Yak52 have to admit it's a bit of an ergonomic nightmare. The flap lever and undercarriage lever look and feel identical. The undercarriage lever has next to it the flap position indicator lights labelled UP/DOWN. And there are no squat switches or gear unsafe warning system - so Yaks sometimes get landed gear-up, or have the gear retracted when on the ground.

The '52 also has some idiosyncrasies: ASIs in KPH and metric altimeters are common, manifold pressure is shown in mm Hg, while the engine speed is shown in percent RPM rather than actual RPM, following jet convention (military Yak pilots go on to the Delphin jet after the '52).

But none of this matters (except maybe the lack of gear safety features) - it just adds to the character of a very exciting machine.

SSD

[Lowtimer]

Onan,

All generalisations are dangerous, but the average SEP tourer CS prop is set up so that in the event of the failure of the oil pressure to the hub, the centrifugal forces will push the prop to fine pitch. In prop shorthand, this is an "oil to increase pitch" prop. On the average twin, it's set up the other way, "oil to decrease pitch", so that oil pressure failure takes the prop to coarse pitch and it can be feathered. Some of the more advanced aerobatic types take into account the possibility of oil pressure fluctuations due to extreme manouevring at high indicated air speed and redline RPM - and therefore go for and "oil to decrease" prop to reduce the risk of the engine blowing up through over-revving at the moment of the oil pressure faltering.

[Flash0710]

Yaks...........

Can't beat em

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[knobbygb]

Thanks for the advice. As a newbie I see my future flying panning out somthing like this:

70 hrs in a Pa28 - Done.
Conversion to Robin 2160 - Just done (today) - much nicer to fly than the Warrior - has a stick and you actually need to use the rudder! Also, it stalls!
Fly the Robin until it starts to get boring - do some basic aeros.
Basic taildragging in the clubs C140 or perhaps a Cub.
More advanced taildragging in the clubs Cap10b.
Hopefully by about 200 hours end up flying somthing like a Chipmunk - ideally in a 2 aircraft group - chippie and also a fast 4 seat tourer.

SSD, your Chippie is beautiful (was parked next to you at Duxford) - and I only live 25 minutes from Barton. Must come and have a look sometime. Don't suppose any of your group have instructors licenses do they?

PS. Just looking at a Yak makes me very nervous.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD, your Chippie is beautiful (was parked next to you at Duxford)

You were in the B17, then!! (or Whirley's Robbo!)

Don't suppose any of your group have instructors licenses do they?

No, but we use Martin Rushbroke or Bob Knight, both Barton instructors and both very good. Martin is 'Mr Yak', as well.

PS. Just looking at a Yak makes me very nervous.



It shouldn't. They can look a bit intimidating, and they are fast and furious, but nothing to worry about - a very 'honest' aeroplane - slighly demanding but no nasty vices.

25 mins from BTN and you have access to a Cap 10? Where is that based?

SSD

[Evo]

Conversion to Robin 2160 - Just done (today) - much nicer to fly than the Warrior - has a stick and you actually need to use the rudder! Also, it stalls!


I've just done the same thing; PA-28 -> Robin 2160. Wonderful aeroplane compared to the Warrior. Tried making it go upside down yet? :ooh: :D

Next step for me (@65-ish hours) is the Citabria that we've (hopefully) got arriving shortly. It's daunting for me anyway :)

[knobbygb]

SSD - must be getting a bit mixed up - definatley wasn't in the B17 - think I might have been behind you at departure time or somthing - definatley remember seeing a chippie though.
YAK's - no reason why I'm nervous really - bad choice of words on my part - they just look a bit intimidating as you say.
The Cap 10 I (theoretically) have access to is at Sherburn - from where I live its one hour the other way from Barton (but usually easier with the M60 traffic). Only £95/hr, by the way, if anyone's interested.

Evo, not manged upside down yet - nearly did today but felt a bit queasy after 30 mins of stalls and 75 deg steep turns under a very bumpy, thundery sky. Love the aircraft though - come to the Sherburn fly-in in June and we can go for a jolly - I have a Robin booked for the whole day.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

knobbygb

The Robin is a lot of fun, and a nice type in which to learn basic aerobatics. It will build up your biceps, though.... you'd need to be Arnold Schwarzenegger to overstress one.

The Cap 10 for £95/hr is even better! Much lighter to fly, and more precise. The difference in handling between the Cap and the Robin is a bit like the difference between the Robin and the PA28. And as taildraggers go, they're not too bad - very good view over the nose, flaps to help with the approach, and good control authority.

Take advantage of it while it's cheap! Just be careful not to pull the stick as hard as you will learn to in the Robin, unless you're nice and high and wearing a parachute!;)

[Lowtimer]

Cap-10... mmm... what a lovely little aeroplane. Even nicer feeling flight controls than the Yak, probably as nice as the Chipmunk, and much better rate of roll than the Chippie, combined with a much better rate of climb, which makes all the difference for aerobatics training. Fast, too, and so pretty. I don't think there's one for hire anywhere near me in East Anglia, more's the pity. Scrumptious.

[stiknruda]

Lowtimer,

I too. like the CAP10B. Had some great aeros instruction in Normandy a few years back in one.

There are 2 privately owned CAP's that I know of in E Anglia and FNG has one at WW!

Stik

[FNG]

My Cap 10 likes taking me to East Anglia, an area I like to fly in (although sadly Swanton and Snoring have closed). Sometimes I can fly to my wife's family cottage on the Norfolk coast thanks to the excellent local farmstrip. Where are you based, Lowtimer? Fancy trading flights in something? I ought to pay Stik a visit also.

knobbyg, doing the tailwheel tick in a Cub is a good idea. It has a more pronounced three point attitude and is harder to land than a Cap. It's also just great fun to fly. The Cap is hard to taxi in a breeze, but not hard to land once you've figured out how to make it slow down and descend. I love it.

The flying programmes indicated by Lowtimer and knobby do at least show how people needn't be limited by the market prevalance of the usual types as trainers/rentals.

[Lowtimer]

FNG - sounds good, I've PM'd you

SSD -
The '52 also has some idiosyncrasies: ASIs in KPH and metric altimeters are common,

With some amusing consequences. Like all UK-permit ones ours has an Imperial altimeter in the front, but we have the metric one in the back, along with metric VSI and ASI. The 52 is slow for its power and climbs like a dingbat. However, following the adrenaline rush of their first Yak take-off, I find novice passengers often pay more heed to misinterpretation of the instruments than the evidence of their senses. They therefore tend to be unduly in awe of the speed ("Coo, it cruises at 250 and Vne is 420!") and much less impressed by the rate of climb ("It only looks like we're climbing at 1000 feet per minute, and are we really only at 1000 feet yet?)

(for those who have never had to fly metric, 10 metres / sec on the VSI is about 2000 fpm, and 1000 metres is about 3300 feet)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

That's right, Lowtimer, as you say the '52 is no tourer - not quick for the power (360 bhp), very thirsty, and no luggage space. But as I said in my 'Pilot' article a while back, that's not its forte.

Not only is it aerobatically unlimited, it can also do vertical take-offs. Line up, apply full power, when airbourne raise the gear and hold the aeroplane down in level flight as it rapidly accelerates and the gear locks 'up' (needs increasing forward pressure on the stick - don't ding the prop!). When the trees at the far end of the runway are filling the windscreen, ease off the forward pressure and you can climb literally vertically for several hundred feet. But don't do it unless you've practiced it using steeper and steeper climbs first, you are current, and 'in the groove'.

Don't try it in a 172 (or even a Chippy)!

SSD

[Lowtimer]

SSD -

You're a braver man than I! Certainly much more experienced, of course. About 30 degrees nose up is about as much as I dare at low level. But with a couple of thousand feet under me I do sometimes use the vertical climb trick as a demonstration of the wonderful vertical inertia the Yak offers... even from cruise power, it really brings home what Neil Williams wrote in "Aerobatics" about the Yak-18 and -50 trading speed for kinetic energy and back again in a yo-yo style of aerobatics.

As for Genna's flick-roll on take-off, first time I saw that I nearly choked on my excellent Old Buckenham airshow burger. And then the square loop circuit to land... hands over the eyes stuff, but I was peeking as well.

[TheKentishFledgling]

And then the square loop circuit to land...

That's definately something I'd love to see done - pretty impressive I'm sure.

tKF

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I haven't had the pleasure of watching Genna's display yet, but I have flown with him in our Yak and learnd a heck of a lot.

The Skytrace video has some excellent footage of Genna aerobatting the Yak - including the flick roll on take off seen from inside and out - and that amazing landing technique - fast low run downwind along the runway, pull up to a steep climb rolling inverted near the top, gear down (up??) and flaps during the inverted, and pull through a half-loop to land.

Superb!

SSD

[QNH 1013]

SSD,

Do you have a copy of Genna's routine on video, and if so, please could I borrow it? I have read reports of his routine and been sufficiently impressed by these to want to see the real thing, or at least a video.

I flew with him last year (my first experience of the YAK52) and was v e r y impressed.

Does anyone know if / where he is displaying this year?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I 'lent' my copy of the Skytrace vid to someone ages ago and haven't seen it for a while. I presume it's still available - I got mine from Transair, and it looks like I may have to buy another :(

The vid is quite excellent if you are interested in the '52. Lots of internal and external aeros views, with mini cams mounted inside and out. There's also a complete viewing of Genna flying his display at Cosford a few years back.

SSD

[M14P]

Whirly - not knocking the 'usual' stuff at all. Just lamenting the lack of availability of more unusual stuff for hire (mainly due to the fact that Permit aircraft cannot be hired out).

Good responses guys'n'gals, keep 'em coming.

To date I have flown 52 different types (and learned something from every one, spamcan or not!)

As for groups etc - I have been considering a CAP-10b (or c) but decided that lack of readily avaiable hangarage and possibly rather large share price might make it non-viable.

As for Wilgas - yes, they can be fitted with skis, and floats and Infra-red equipment and a Blue Flashing light on the belly (see Polish Border Guard aircraft - most amusing 'NeeNaaNeeNaa' and so on)

[Flash0710]

But Genna would go mental if you tried that stuff!::uhoh:

[TheAerosCo]

Not only is it aerobatically unlimited, it can also do vertical take-offs. Line up, apply full power, when airbourne raise the gear and hold the aeroplane down in level flight as it rapidly accelerates and the gear locks 'up' ....etc. But don't do it unless you've practiced it using steeper and steeper climbs first, you are current, and 'in the groove'.

.. and please don't do it unless you've practiced power failure from the critical points and (hence) have also ascertained a minimum target aispeed for the pull up.

TAC

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You'd only initiate the pull-up if you had full power from start of roll to pull-up. Engine failure at any point during the couple of seconds of vertical flight (I must empasise, I only hold the vertical for a couple of seconds - the aeroplane is probably capable of maintaining it for at least twice that, but I'm not good enough or too cowarly to push it anywhere near the limits at low level) would require an early push-over or roll out, to a standard EFATO.

Experimenets at altitude indicate that complete power loss at the point of pull-up would still allow a reasonable vertical section to be flown before the need for a push-over, such is the Yak's inertia. At low level, a power failure at the point of pull-up would be handled by trading speed for height in a staright-ahead climb, then standard EFATO.

SSD

[MLS-12D]

I agree that one should not sneer at pilots flying boring old faithfuls like the C172, PA28, etc. There are very good reasons why there are so many of those airplanes around: they are simple, safe, relatively economical, reasonably fast, etc. etc.

However, I wonder if the huge 'drop-out' rate amongst qualified pilots might not be rather lower if people made the effort to get some variety in their flying. Admittedly, effort is required, but there ARE unusual airplanes out there, you just have to do some digging and not be afraid to ask.

MLS-12D :D

P.S. I've never flown a CAP 10, but I have little doubt that it is a better stress-reliever than this CAP 10 namesake (http://www.cap10.net/) ;)